Psalm 139:1 – Knowing and Being Known

Here is my fairly literal translation of this verse:

¹To one directing. To David, a psalm.

 LORD, You search me and You know.

A couple of technical thoughts: The literary “critics” propose that this is not a psalm of David because there are two words in the Psalm which they say are “chaldaisms.” David lived around 1000 BC. The Jewish people were deported to Babylon (Chaldea) in about 587 BC. From living in Babylon, many Hebrew words became “chaldaized” where their spelling or pronunciation changed slightly because they lived in a world that spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Hence, if the “critics” find a word that is spelled in a Chaldean form rather than Hebrew, they conclude the document had to be written after 587, not before. My response would be that is not only bad theology, it’s poor science. A good scientist (and that is what the “critics” are claiming to be) would say, “The presence of apparently chaldaized words presents the possibility of a later date. However, there are other possible explanations which should be considered.” Like the evolutionists, as soon as the critics find any explanation that demeans the Bible and pushes God in a corner, they jump on it and present it as fact. As I said above, that’s not only bad theology, it’s poor science. Based purely on the science of textual criticism, I would suggest that we not forget the Jewish people came from Babylon to start with. God called Abraham out of “Ur of the Chaldeans.” They may have retained traces of chaldaism even down to David’s time. Also, any interaction with Aramaic speaking peoples could have encouraged chaldaisms – and David was a great king who would have had a great deal of international interaction – especially when the trade routes between the east and Egypt ran generally through Palestine. My bottom-line would be that the “critics” are talking about a period of time two to three thousand years ago and acting like they have total knowledge of all that happened when the truth is they have very little. Let them offer their opinions, call them just that, then choose what they want to believe. I have offered my opinions and I choose to believe the Bible. It says “To David” and I will choose to believe that.

Secondly, someone might ask, “Why is it ‘to David,’ not ‘by David’”? I have addressed that question at length before, but basically I think it is because David knew he was writing under inspiration and he was much too humble a man to take credit for what he wrote. It was given to David, by the Lord, and he knew it.

As for the Hebrew text of the Psalm itself, notice my translation, “LORD, You search me and You know.”  When the Hebrew name Yahveh is given, I usually just write it out as its four Hebrew letters YHVH. But, I’m in the mood to use the old King James convention of capitalizing LORD to represent it. There is another name for God which is Adonai, which means literally “master” or “lord.” When that name is used, it is translated “Lord,” to distinguish it from Yahveh/LORD. I think I’ll follow that convention for a while.

David says, “LORD, You search me and You know.” I think most translations fill in the “You know me.” However, there is no pronominal suffix on the verb “know,” so I chose not to insert one. The LORD searches me and He knows. “Knows what?,” one might ask. I kind of think the question is the point! One stops to answer the question and what do you conclude? He knows everything. He knows everything about me, but He also knows everything around me. He knows my circumstances. He knows my strengths, He knows my weaknesses. He knows my sins and He knows my successes. He knows my past, He knows my present, and He knows my future. He sees clearly through all subterfuge and feigning. He knows.

Interesting this is written in the first person. It is one thing to say, “He knows.” It is another thing to pause for a moment, sincerely focus on Him, and say to Him, “You know.” It is very deeply personal, is it not? “LORD, You search me and You know.”

A lot of people would take that as a negative. The minute one talks about the Lord searching and knowing, too many immediately turn it into a courtroom, anticipate their guilty verdict, and quickly shun the thought. That is too bad. Nothing could possibly be better than to have the God of grace search me and know. His grace comes with His infinite power and wisdom and His promise to “work all things together for my good.” I find those words very comforting. “LORD, You search me and You know.” On the other hand, at first glance, there is a sense in which I find them painful. At first they seem to be a finger rubbing in my wound, my wound of all the things that I find painful in my life. The words remind me of those things and then I have to face the bald fact that the Lord knows about those things but hasn’t and may not do anything about them. He knows how much it hurts, He has the power to change those things, but He doesn’t. He knows, but leaves me in it. My heart’s first response is to find that painful. But then I remember that He does all things for my good. Even allowing me to suffer is part of His kindness and a love that is beyond me. I couldn’t arrange suffering for my children, subject them to it, leave them in it, listen to their cries and do nothing. But that is because I don’t love them enough. It’s actually me that can’t bear their suffering – even if I knew it was for their good. But not so with my Father. He loves me so much He will put me through whatever it takes to make me what I ought to be. That is part of His searching and knowing. He sees the dross and loves me too much not to do whatever it takes to purge it out. That is once again a comforting (though painful) thought.

LORD, You search me – perhaps far deeper than I can even imagine – and You know – You know everything.  You gather together all of Your knowing and use it to my good and Your great eternal purposes.

Hmmm. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. It is high, I cannot attain unto it. (!)

Galatians 2:20,21 – Thoughts on a Favorite Passage

 Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

²⁰I am crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ is living in me. [The life] which I am now living in [the] flesh I am living in faith, that of the Son of God who loved me and delivered Himself on my behalf. ²¹I am not setting aside the grace of God, for if righteousness [comes] through law then Christ died in vain.

This verse has long been a cheery and pleasant cordial to my soul. I memorized it early in my walk with God and have found it always an endearing friend. “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me …” Thinking about it, there are three thoughts I’d like to record:

First , I like what Barnes said: “The Redeemer, by the death of the cross, became insensible to all surrounding objects, as the dead always are … Paul says that he became insensible to the law as a means of justification; to the world; to ambition and the love of money; to the pride and pomp of life; and to the dominance of evil and hateful passions. They lost their power over him; they ceased to influence him.”

I of course am still a miserable wayward sinner, but it is at the same time true that I have died to this world. Oh, I still live in it. I still love it in many ways (sometimes too many). Yet I find I really can (at times) hold it with open hands. It just isn’t THAT important to me anymore. It really is true in a sense that I’ve “died to it,” I’ve been crucified with Christ. I can do without the things of this world. But I can only do without them because I know Christ. When I face the pain of losing in this world or the pain of having to live “without” it still hurts very, very deeply. But as long as I can look into the face of Christ, know that He knows, know that He knows best, know that He loves me, know that my times are in His hands, from somewhere I find the strength to go on (for a few seconds, anyway). “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me …” Even though I all too often fail, yet I know that in Christ I’ve been freed from this world. I can literally be “dead” to it, and alive to Christ; I can be literally insensitive to its allures and feel my heart entirely Christ’s. And it’s not me, it’s Christ living in me. I find all of this (except my own waywardness) very comforting.

Second, here is one of those places where the Bible reminds us that, although God “so loved the world” (Jn 3:16) and Jesus died “for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2), yet at the same time His death was entirely personal for each and every one of us. Paul says, “…Who loved me and gave Himself for me.” David knew the same personal relationship: “O God, Thou art my God …” (Ps 63:1). He loved me. He gave Himself for me. He is my God. “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28). It is so nice that a real relationship with God is totally and delightfully personal!

Finally, and growing out of the last point, my mind goes back to my last post, that justification by faith is a far, far better plan than works because, properly embraced and understood, this is exactly its effect – wonder at His love. If I can be justified by some checklist, then I suppose I have to add “Love God” to my list. When I know I came to him filthy and stinking and deserving hell, when I know that He offers me complete forgiveness if only I’ll accept the Christ who “loved me and gave Himself for me,” I no longer need any checklist. I love Him Who first loved me. As one man said, “There is no higher sense of obligation or duty than that generated by love.” It is no “burden” to have to do what’s right. I want to. Like Jacob, my seven years of service seem as nothing because of my love for this One who first loved me. Again, this is a far, far better way. To love, “duty” is a welcome but meaningless word. What mother ever thought it her “duty” to nurse her newborn child?? Duty? Well, yes, it is. But it isn’t. Love compels her, not “duty,” so the “duty” still gets done, but in a far, far better way.

So it is with God. To know His love is to love Him. All down through the ages, the debate has raged that Sola Fide breeds licentiousness. Mai Genoito! Justification by faith can only breed licentiousness in those who never really understood it to begin with. Real justification by faith generates people who will be moral, do right, be conscientious, love their neighbors, control their tongues, and all the other things they “ought” to do, yet never count it a burden or even see it as an obligation. Love compels them. There is absolutely no form of works-righteousness anywhere that produces people who love from their hearts. Only justification by faith in Christ – in Him who loved me and gave Himself for me. If people somewhere are claiming justification by faith but living godless lives, the answer is not to confront them with a fresh “to do” list, but rather to call them into question whether they really ever knew Him, and if they have, to perhaps see beyond their “checklist” religion and lay hold of a real relationship with Him Who loves them.

I could say more about the details of exegesis of these verses, but I’ve said enough. This brings me to the end of chapter 2 of Galatians. I think this is good spot to take a break. I am in the mood to do some Hebrew work for a while, then come back to Galatians. I plan to do a study of Psalm 139, then come back. The fun never ends!

Galatians 2:17-19 – The Far, Far Better Way

Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁷But if we ourselves are also found [to be] sinners [while] seeking to be justified in Christ, then [is] Christ a servant of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸For if I am building again those things which I destroyed, I am presenting myself [to be] a trespasser, ¹⁹for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God.

Commentators all try to decide if Paul is still speaking to Peter regarding his duplicity or if he is now simply discoursing the subject of justification for the benefit of the Galatians. I don’t see any clear evidence to definitively conclude the matter. But, regardless, Peter’s prevarication is still the backdrop of the discussion. With the “we ourselves” I would conclude Paul is referring to himself and his fellow Jews. He’s already acknowledged the Jewish penchant for calling the Gentiles “sinners.” Like all legalists in every age, the Jews’ lives were consumed with scrupulously “keeping the rules” (never mind Jesus called them a “wicked and adulterous generation” – Pharisees always have an amazing ability to figure out which rules they have to keep and which ones they can conveniently overlook), so, as they observed the Gentiles’ lives, all they could see was all the broken rules. Sinners!

So it would seem to me verse 17 is asking the question, “For those of us who accept salvation by grace and thus cast aside the scrupulous rule-keeping – if others see us “breaking the rules” and conclude we have become “sinners,” is it then somehow true that Jesus and His teachings actually promote sin?? Of course Paul’s answer is “May it never be!” – his oft repeated “Mai Genoito!”

I think in the next line, he’s saying after having embraced salvation by grace and taught it to others, if he himself returned to justification by law-keeping, that would in fact make him a trespasser. Of course the implication is that is exactly what Peter was doing.

And then he goes on to explain what Law-keepers cannot understand: “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God”.   In “through the Law, I died to the Law,” I think what he means is that the Law did its job of condemning him and having realized its hopelessness, he turned to the only possible answer, justification by faith, apart from that Law. But note that justification by faith was not simply a way to escape condemnation. He does not say, “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might not be condemned.” He also doesn’t say, “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live a lawless life.” Note again what he does say: “… through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God”.  That I might live to God. This is what rule-keepers cannot understand. The issue isn’t rule-keeping or not. The issue is “living to God.” It is a relationship.

As I pointed out above, Jesus called the scrupulous rule-keeping Pharisees a “wicked and adulterous generation.” Like all rule-keepers of every age, the Pharisees conveniently picked which rules they needed to follow and which they could conveniently overlook. I have observed myself that some of the staunchest rule-keepers in the church today actually live unbelievably godless lives behind the scenes. That is why so many supposedly “fundamentalist” preachers and evangelists go down in immorality. Like the Pharisees, they put on a good face of rule-keeping, while having affairs and committing other acts of immorality, greed, deceit, and cruelty. Rule-keeping simply breeds rule- management.

Real justification by faith throws itself into the arms of Jesus and leaves a person not caring about “the rules” but rather in love with the God Who has saved them. They actually put aside rule-keeping “that I might live to God.” And, again, here is what rule-keepers cannot understand: living to God, living in love with Him, doesn’t make me go wild in immorality. I love Him. Why would I want to do things that displease Him? Isn’t that true in any love relationship? A man marries his wife and soon discovers there are things that displease her – like taking his shower in the morning. She doesn’t like it. She doesn’t like to sleep with a “dirty” man. So what does he do? He starts showering in the evening. Why? Because that is a new rule he has to keep? No. It has nothing to do with rules. He loves her. It pains him to see her displeased. He learns to call when he’ll be home late, put his clothes in the hamper, wipe his feet at the door, help her with the dishes, etc., etc. and why? Because he loves her. It’s not about rule-keeping. It’s about love. And so it is with any love relationship and so it is with God.

Again, rule-keepers cannot understand this. This is why those justified by faith still talk about “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ” (Rom 8:2) and the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25) and why we can say, “I delight in the Law of God in my inner man” (Rom 7:22). This is why Paul can say, “Sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14).

As Paul says in I Tim 1:9, “Laws are for law-breakers.” A person who loves has risen to a far higher standard than “rules.” A person who loves sees the heart of the loved one. They see the goals. Then they don’t need “rules” because their heart already wishes to live pleasing their loved one. That is in part why Jesus can tell us (those justified by faith) that the entire Law can be summed up in just two commands, “Love God and love others.” A person who genuinely loves doesn’t need “rules.” Paul will go on to say this same thing later in Galatians, listing the fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control) and then say, “Against such things there is no law” (5:22,23). You can’t make enough rules to produce love and joy and peace. Those are the blessings of living a love-life.

Once again, Sola Fide is not the “preferred method” of justification because it “works” or because it is the only alternative to law-keeping. Sola Fide is the method of salvation which God provided and it is far, far better than rule-keeping because it raises its people to the much higher standard of love. As Paul says to us in Romans,

⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. ⁹ The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”^{] 10} Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Peter, in his duplicity, was throwing all of this away. No wonder Paul withstood him to his face!

God help us all to see past our propensity for rule-keeping and help us to instead genuinely live a life of love.

What if everybody did?

Galatians 2:17-19 – “Somewhat Obscure?”

 Once again, here is my fairly literal translation of these verses:

¹⁷But if we ourselves are also found [to be] sinners [while] seeking to be justified in Christ, then [is] Christ a servant of sin? May it never be! ¹⁸For if I am building again those things which I destroyed, I am presenting myself [to be] a trespasser, ¹⁹for through the Law I died to the Law that I might live to God.

I find the logic and logical flow of this passage somewhat elusive. Interestingly, Barnes says, “The connection here is not very clear, and the sense of the verse is somewhat obscure.” It’s always nice to know someone else feels the same! Even Eadie calls it a “difficult verse,” and goes on to say, “The structure of the verse … prevents it from being well rendered into English …”

This definitely happens from time to time in the Bible. As I’ve studied along verse by verse down through the years, there have definitely been passages like this where I can translate the words, diagram the grammatical structure, read it over and over, and yet still struggle to follow its logic.

Why does this happen?

Sometimes I wonder if their minds were simply clearer 2000 years ago. As I read history, observe archaeological findings, and just all around in life I see a lot of other indications that this is so. We think because we have computers and technology that we are the intelligent ones and everyone who lived before us was ignorant. “Why, people 2000 years ago were practically cave men!” I don’t think that at all the case. What we have today is collective knowledge but I fear that we as individuals are far behind the mental acumen even of our grandparents, and how much more so the ancients? So it’s possible that is the problem with verses like this. They are simply speaking in a logic that was for them child’s play but which to us remains obscure.

It’s also possible it is simply a cultural difference. I have long realized from exegeting ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek, specifically) that a people’s language is actually a window into their culture. What they say and how they say it is sometimes distinct to them because it reflects what they find important (or not). It will always blow my mind to realize there is no real past, present, or future tense in Hebrew. We could not speak in English if we were unable to express whether we meant past, present, or future! Time means everything to us. It apparently meant nothing to them. That is an enormous cultural difference expressed through the very structure of a people’s language. When it comes to the passage before us, we can translate the words, study the grammatical structure, and do our best to translate it into English, but perhaps because we simply do not share their culture, we may be left a little confused as to what exactly they’re saying.

One last explanation would be the problem of context. We all know how a group of friends, classmates, co-workers, or perhaps a family can say things which they all understand but no one else does. “You had to be there.” “It’s an ‘inside joke.’” It’s true of history, jokes, catch phrases, etc. When people share a context they can begin to communicate in a sort of verbal shorthand. They don’t need to explain themselves. They all know what they mean. But if you come in as an outsider, you’re like, “Huh?” It’s very possible that is often a problem studying an ancient language. We simply do not share their context. For instance, Paul’s suggestion that justification by faith makes Christ the “minister of sin” could easily have been an assertion of the Judaizers. The Galatians would know that immediately. We’re just left with, “Huh?”

All of this does not mean we cannot understand the writings of ancients. Usually (as I think is true of the passage before us) their point is obvious enough. It’s just that it can be difficult to follow their logic line by line and word by word. Frankly, I think it just means we ought to study all the more carefully and humbly, realizing we are studying someone else’s language. …And we shouldn’t be surprised when, “The structure of the verse … prevents it from being well rendered into English …” It is simply a fact of working with someone else’s language and would be true whether what we’re studying is Scripture or any other ancient document or even something contemporary. Translation simply cannot always be a neat and tidy business.

Having said all this, I’ll come back and try to unravel this “difficult” passage in another blog.